Yeap - and selling it to MGPmarcush. wrote:
to the drawing board.. err cad workstation!
Have a nice day
Yeap - and selling it to MGPmarcush. wrote:
to the drawing board.. err cad workstation!
I don't think they should ban it this year (if illegal at all!). F-dunc, DDD and EBD gave huge advantage and it took a while for the other teams to copy it. During that time McL and RBR enjoyed huge advantage over the others and are significantly ahead of Ferrari for example.747heavy wrote:So either they let people go down this route now, which means everybody has to try and copy the concept and spending extra money and maybe risking some wing failures in places like Monza.
Or they come up with a stricter load test after Hungary, to keeps things in check.
They have both options.
As much as I respect and admire the creativity of the guys at RBR and Ferrari, IMHO the later option is the more sensible one, from a cost and safety perspective.
The RBR and Ferrari guys have had there advantage, fair enough, but now, they should stop the thing, before it get´s out of hand.
At the end everybody will copy it, like the F-Duct,DDD and EBD, it will just cost extra money and nobody will gain a huge advantage. Some will be able to copy it faster then others, but at the end of the day, everybody will find a way to do it.
This is the Red Bull in winter testing:richard_leeds wrote:As for handling, surely they would want to move the load to the inner unloaded wheel? That would give 4 wheels in full contact with the ground, not 3? In that case you'd want the inner wing to be closer to the ground not higher?
There is a thread for this and frankly that picture tells us nothing because the front tyres are in different height positions. What's more interesting is the wing's ability to adjust, via flexing or other means, depending on the yaw of the car in a corner.Afterburner wrote:
Try comparing the wing endplates to the red lines and the chassis not the tyres?segedunum wrote:frankly that picture tells us nothing because the front tyres are in different height positions.
No they arent. They built it to flex under enough load (250+ MPH). So maybe F1 can try something similar to this with the front nosecone where it would flex backwards increasing the angle of the wing. It was also a snap not a gradual flex.richard_leeds wrote:I imagine the description of NHRA means they are using actuators?
Also, the various mentions of flexible nose cone connections are making me shout "crash test" at the screen. Colleagues sitting nearby are starting to look uneasy
All it's proving is that the car is moving up and down with different parts in relation to each other under different circumstances, not that the wing is flexing. It's not conclusive but other pictures of what the wing is doing pretty much are.richard_leeds wrote:Try comparing the wing endplates to the red lines and the chassis not the tyres?
I just clocked your post marcush, and I think this is quite telling.marcush. wrote:there are two schools of thought ,i believe:
RedBull,Lotus ,Ferrari have fat endplates housing the actuators
Renault ,Mercedes,FI have the actuator housed in a rib situated considerably closer to the centreline of the car.
this bears a lot of mechanical advantage ,as the actuators for both solutions will be about the same weight ,the endplate solution will have much more leverage on the wingassembly so either you have to stiffen up the wing itself or you will have to live with bigger amplitudes of wing vibration...see REDBULL...